T Nation

Free State Project

Libertarians have selected New Hampshire as the state to host “porcupines” aka libertarians that move to a specific state with the intent to concentrate voting power so as to dilute the influence of the federal government.

Along with the 2nd amendment crowd, and the home schoolers, the 3rd group of people who are interested in a “free state” is the norml (pot legalization) groupies. Ironically politics makes strange bedfellows, but these people may share the same interest in having a state that won’t allow the use of state resources used to control what adults choose to put in their own bodies.

Could this be a trend that steriod users could use as an example as well?

just posing a question!

www.freestateproject.com

This kind of crap pops up every four years or so. The last time I remember it was pre-Katrina and all the conservatives moving to Louisiana.

As soon as they got there it would turn to shit, because that is human nature.

[quote]doogie wrote:
This kind of crap pops up every four years or so. The last time I remember it was pre-Katrina and all the conservatives moving to Louisiana.

As soon as they got there it would turn to shit, because that is human nature.[/quote]

This “crap” didn’t just pop up. The Free State Project, while a pipe dream IMO, has been around for quite some time; many have already relocated to New Hampshire, in fact. It’s simply a group of like minded people trying to concentrate their numbers in a sparsely populated state in order to influence state and local government. As far as your last point, call me pessimistic, and as much as I hate to admit it, I couldn’t agree more.

Unfortunately, you’d need to live in New Hampshire…

[quote]fatsuperman wrote:
Libertarians have selected New Hampshire as the state to host “porcupines” aka libertarians that move to a specific state with the intent to concentrate voting power so as to dilute the influence of the federal government.

Along with the 2nd amendment crowd, and the home schoolers, the 3rd group of people who are interested in a “free state” is the norml (pot legalization) groupies. Ironically politics makes strange bedfellows, but these people may share the same interest in having a state that won’t allow the use of state resources used to control what adults choose to put in their own bodies.

Could this be a trend that steriod users could use as an example as well?

just posing a question!

www.freestateproject.com[/quote]

The problem with the FSP is that it is full of the pussy libertarians. These guys (not all mind you) are the ones who want to live in New Hampshire but commute to Boston, ect. FSP is generally full of libertarians that don’t grasp the fact that on April 19th in Concord the minutemen didn’t stand there quoting Locke to the Brits; they fucking shot them. I firmly believe in the FSP and had intended to make my move to New Hampshire until I heard about Free State Wyoming. I urge anyone that truly cares about their liberty to consider them first. New Hampshire was chosen mostly for its creature comforts while Wyoming was chosen because it is a state where we could truly accomplish our political objectives and become free.

I could bore everyone with the laundry list of reasons why Wyoming is superior but I shall leave it at this: New Hampshire= 1.2 Million people; Wyoming=500,000 with several times the land mass. 20,000 libertarians in New Hampshire would therefore have but a fraction of the clout it would in Wyoming.

I certainly have no beef with the FSP, and would recommend them highly if you simply refuse to move west, but far and wide your best bet would be FSW.

http://www.freestatewyoming.org/index.html

Mike

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:

This “crap” didn’t just pop up. The Free State Project, while a pipe dream IMO, has been around for quite some time; many have already relocated to New Hampshire, in fact. It’s simply a group of like minded people trying to concentrate their numbers in a sparsely populated state in order to influence state and local government. As far as your last point, call me pessimistic, and as much as I hate to admit it, I couldn’t agree more.[/quote]

You’re right. This is a totally unique and original idea. Or not.

Let’s move to Montana!

or Wyoming!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_State_Wyoming

Or Idaho!:

Or South Carolina!:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus

Racists want to do it:

even smelly hippies want to do it:

Other equally futile attempts (not exactly the same, I admit):

[quote]doogie wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:

This “crap” didn’t just pop up. The Free State Project, while a pipe dream IMO, has been around for quite some time; many have already relocated to New Hampshire, in fact. It’s simply a group of like minded people trying to concentrate their numbers in a sparsely populated state in order to influence state and local government. As far as your last point, call me pessimistic, and as much as I hate to admit it, I couldn’t agree more.

You’re right. This is a totally unique and original idea. Or not.

[/quote]

Where did I say anything about it being original? I was simply pointing out that the FSP didn’t just “pop up,” as you implied. That’s it…maybe I misunderstood you but in case you didn’t notice, the rest of my post was in agreement with your opinion.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Unfortunately, you’d need to live in New Hampshire…[/quote]

Too close to New Jersey?

Remember this one?
http://www.sculptors.com/~salsbury/Oceana/

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
The problem with the FSP is that it is full of the pussy libertarians. These guys (not all mind you) are the ones who want to live in New Hampshire but commute to Boston, ect. FSP is generally full of libertarians that don’t grasp the fact that on April 19th in Concord the minutemen didn’t stand there quoting Locke to the Brits; they fucking shot them. I firmly believe in the FSP and had intended to make my move to New Hampshire until I heard about Free State Wyoming. I urge anyone that truly cares about their liberty to consider them first. New Hampshire was chosen mostly for its creature comforts while Wyoming was chosen because it is a state where we could truly accomplish our political objectives and become free.

I could bore everyone with the laundry list of reasons why Wyoming is superior but I shall leave it at this: New Hampshire= 1.2 Million people; Wyoming=500,000 with several times the land mass. 20,000 libertarians in New Hampshire would therefore have but a fraction of the clout it would in Wyoming.

I certainly have no beef with the FSP, and would recommend them highly if you simply refuse to move west, but far and wide your best bet would be FSW [/quote]

I find it strange that you’re simultaneously supporting one of these projects and calling Libertarians pussys. What is the point you are trying to make? Libertarians support the right to bear arms to a greater extent than any other party. Your analogy about quoting Locke was fairly amusing, however.

You were right for pointing out that the FSP has been around for a while. That’s an important point. It is not just another one of the periodic movements cited by Doogie. Type the words into Google and you will get results that are associated with the NH project, rather than some other state’s. That’s why it is prominent.

It’s been around less than five years. That’s not much time at all.

If you are going to argue that less than five years is a significant amount of time, why haven’t they come close to getting the 20,000 people they want to commit to moving? From that wikipedia link:

“As of June 6th, 2006, 326 people have signed up on the project’s website, with a deadline of December 31, 2006 to reach 1000.”

Not real impressive.

[quote]doogie wrote:

LBRTRN wrote:
Where did I say anything about it being original? I was simply pointing out that the FSP didn’t just “pop up,” as you implied. That’s it…maybe I misunderstood you but in case you didn’t notice, the rest of my post was in agreement with your opinion.

Nominal Prospect wrote:
You were right for pointing out that the FSP has been around for a while. That’s an important point. It is not just another one of the periodic movements cited by Doogie. Type the words into Google and you will get results that are associated with the NH project, rather than some other state’s. That’s why it is prominent.

It’s been around less than five years. That’s not much time at all.

If you are going to argue that less than five years is a significant amount of time, why haven’t they come close to getting the 20,000 people they want to commit to moving? From that wikipedia link:

“As of June 6th, 2006, 326 people have signed up on the project’s website, with a deadline of December 31, 2006 to reach 1000.”

Not real impressive.
[/quote]

maybe it would be better to start with small towns and work from there?

I think there is a catholic town in the US that does this.

[quote]doogie wrote:

LBRTRN wrote:
Where did I say anything about it being original? I was simply pointing out that the FSP didn’t just “pop up,” as you implied. That’s it…maybe I misunderstood you but in case you didn’t notice, the rest of my post was in agreement with your opinion.

Nominal Prospect wrote:
You were right for pointing out that the FSP has been around for a while. That’s an important point. It is not just another one of the periodic movements cited by Doogie. Type the words into Google and you will get results that are associated with the NH project, rather than some other state’s. That’s why it is prominent.

It’s been around less than five years. That’s not much time at all.

If you are going to argue that less than five years is a significant amount of time, why haven’t they come close to getting the 20,000 people they want to commit to moving? From that wikipedia link:

“As of June 6th, 2006, 326 people have signed up on the project’s website, with a deadline of December 31, 2006 to reach 1000.”

Not real impressive.
[/quote]

You are confusing the First 1000 Pledge with the original Statement of Intent. The OsI has no deadline and once 20,000 have signed up–7,205 have signed up thus far–the group will move over a five year period.

The First 1000 pledge–354 have signed up–is a short term plan initiated in 2006 and is a completely different agreement.

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:

You are confusing the First 1000 Pledge with the original Statement of Intent. The OsI has no deadline and once 20,000 have signed up–7,205 have signed up thus far–the group will move over a five year period.

The First 1000 pledge–354 have signed up–is a short term plan initiated in 2006 and is a completely different agreement. [/quote]

I know what it is. If they can’t get the first 1000 to commit, they’ll never get the 20,000.